4 ms·

Side point: "Four out of five people think that internet access is a fundamental right, according to a recent World Service poll in 26 different countries." I

Side point: "Four out of five people think that internet access is a fundamental right, according to a recent World Service poll in 26 different countries." I'm all for net neutrality, ISP competition, etc, but this "right" makes no sense to me. Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them?

Natsu 15y ago
> Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them? I think that "right" is the wrong way to express the idea, because it leads down a path to arguing over the metaphysics of rights instead of all the important practical considerations. Internet access is becoming necessary in the same way as transportation is necessary and society needs to accommodate that fact. Among other things, that means that we have a vested interest in making sure that there's a healthy marketplace, that everyone can get connections at a decent speed, and that you can't just arbitrarily get kicked offline forever.
barrkel 15y ago
I think you're reading that incorrectly; you seem to be interpreting it as "free as in beer" rather than "free as in speech". Rather, the idea that the government can "ban" people from using the internet is something that should not be allowed, because access to the internet is a fundamental requirement for fully living in today's society. A bit like freedom of the press. Nobody suggests that means that newspapers or printing presses should be free.
sycren 15y ago
Many systems are migrating to the net, for example paying bills for utilities or other governmental (uk) facilities. If the three strikes legislation were in action and someone was cut off, they stand to lose a lot more than just their internet connection. Handling my virgin broadband connection using the ebill site rather than having letters sent every month saves me £5 ($8) per month.
- Chris_Newton 15y ago
  As a company director in the UK, I am legally responsible for making sure that the company meets its legal and regulatory obligations. Some of those obligations involve filing regular returns with HM Revenue & Customs, Companies House, etc. Some of those filings must now be made using on-line systems. As a citizen in the UK, I am also legally responsible for providing various information to government departments and renewing various statutory services and licences from time to time: filing a personal tax return, driving licence, TV licence, electoral registration, etc. Once again, much of this is now done on-line, though I don't think any of the above are on-line only yet. I'm not sure I'd go as far as putting Internet access on the level of "fundamental human right". As someone concerned about the recent erosion of far too many genuinely fundamental rights in far too many places, that seems like a loss of perspective. But you can't be asking people to file legal stuff on-line one minute, evangelising about high-speed nationwide broadband as an engine for getting the economy moving again the next minute, and then threatening to cut people off from the Internet based on... less than robust arguments made in some extra-judicial process, let's say. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    Thanks for putting this case so clearly. Agreed.
  - sycren 15y ago
    You're right, it doesn't make any sense to call it a fundamental right on that basis, but would you not say that by filling out these forms or by using the Internet in other ways you are more efficient than if you could not use it at all? If this is true, would this not then put you at a significant commercial disadvantage without the internet against your competitors?
matthewowen 15y ago
I'm not sure that's a meaningful way to understand rights. All rights depend on restricting "freedoms". Saying someone has the right to food entails the belief that society should be willing to do some form of redistribution to ensure that food is available to all. But even the 'libertarian' notion of freedom to do whatever you wish provided it doesn't infringe on someone else's equivalent right to freedom is based on limiting or restricting to guarantee a right which is deemed to be positive. It would be as valid to declare that one has the right to do whatever one wishes, even it oppresses someone else - because the oppressed would also have the same right, even if they were prevented from expressing it. But I digress. The short answer is that your question belongs to the same category as "Why is anyone entitled to education without paying for a teacher's time?" or "Why is anyone entitled to food without growing it?" or "Why is anyone entitled to shelter without building it?" or even "Why is anyone entitled to restrict my right to build a house wherever I want?". In all cases, the answer is "because we (as a society) say so and agree to abide by certain conventions, potentially at an apparent cost to some".
vilya 15y ago
You could say the same about drinking water. Fundamental rights don't necessarily come free of charge.

Natsu 15y ago

> Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them? I think that "right" is the wrong way to express the idea, because it leads down a path to arguing over the metaphysics of rights instead of all the important practical considerations. Internet access is becoming necessary in the same way as transportation is necessary and society needs to accommodate that fact. Among other things, that means that we have a vested interest in making sure that there's a healthy marketplace, that everyone can get connections at a decent speed, and that you can't just arbitrarily get kicked offline forever.

barrkel 15y ago

I think you're reading that incorrectly; you seem to be interpreting it as "free as in beer" rather than "free as in speech". Rather, the idea that the government can "ban" people from using the internet is something that should not be allowed, because access to the internet is a fundamental requirement for fully living in today's society. A bit like freedom of the press. Nobody suggests that means that newspapers or printing presses should be free.

sycren 15y ago

Many systems are migrating to the net, for example paying bills for utilities or other governmental (uk) facilities. If the three strikes legislation were in action and someone was cut off, they stand to lose a lot more than just their internet connection. Handling my virgin broadband connection using the ebill site rather than having letters sent every month saves me £5 ($8) per month.

Chris_Newton 15y ago
As a company director in the UK, I am legally responsible for making sure that the company meets its legal and regulatory obligations. Some of those obligations involve filing regular returns with HM Revenue & Customs, Companies House, etc. Some of those filings must now be made using on-line systems. As a citizen in the UK, I am also legally responsible for providing various information to government departments and renewing various statutory services and licences from time to time: filing a personal tax return, driving licence, TV licence, electoral registration, etc. Once again, much of this is now done on-line, though I don't think any of the above are on-line only yet. I'm not sure I'd go as far as putting Internet access on the level of "fundamental human right". As someone concerned about the recent erosion of far too many genuinely fundamental rights in far too many places, that seems like a loss of perspective. But you can't be asking people to file legal stuff on-line one minute, evangelising about high-speed nationwide broadband as an engine for getting the economy moving again the next minute, and then threatening to cut people off from the Internet based on... less than robust arguments made in some extra-judicial process, let's say. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  Thanks for putting this case so clearly. Agreed.
- sycren 15y ago
  You're right, it doesn't make any sense to call it a fundamental right on that basis, but would you not say that by filling out these forms or by using the Internet in other ways you are more efficient than if you could not use it at all? If this is true, would this not then put you at a significant commercial disadvantage without the internet against your competitors?

matthewowen 15y ago

I'm not sure that's a meaningful way to understand rights. All rights depend on restricting "freedoms". Saying someone has the right to food entails the belief that society should be willing to do some form of redistribution to ensure that food is available to all. But even the 'libertarian' notion of freedom to do whatever you wish provided it doesn't infringe on someone else's equivalent right to freedom is based on limiting or restricting to guarantee a right which is deemed to be positive. It would be as valid to declare that one has the right to do whatever one wishes, even it oppresses someone else - because the oppressed would also have the same right, even if they were prevented from expressing it. But I digress. The short answer is that your question belongs to the same category as "Why is anyone entitled to education without paying for a teacher's time?" or "Why is anyone entitled to food without growing it?" or "Why is anyone entitled to shelter without building it?" or even "Why is anyone entitled to restrict my right to build a house wherever I want?". In all cases, the answer is "because we (as a society) say so and agree to abide by certain conventions, potentially at an apparent cost to some".

vilya 15y ago

You could say the same about drinking water. Fundamental rights don't necessarily come free of charge.